If some parts of the Church of England want women bishops, they must also satisfy those who don't

Set back: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, faces setbacks to reforms that would allow women to become bishops

Anyone who inhabits a blissful state of ignorance over the arcane workings of the Church of England must be completely mystified by its protracted self-immolation over the issue of women bishops.

Didn't its General Synod vote in favour of having women bishops three years ago? So why is the debate even happening again, let alone being adjourned until next November because it might collapse like a plump bishop with the vapours if it's pushed through to a final vote now?

The answer is the the notorious clause 5(1)c, which seeks to enshrine in law protection for those traditionalists - Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals - who cannot countenance female ordained ministry. Women priests can't accept this clause, as it would mean there were two tiers of bishops: Those with oversight over their entire flock (men) and those with oversight only over those bits of their flock which recognise their episcopacy (women).

Boring, isn't it? But over such things does today's Church of England pore, while the British economy goes to hell in a hand-cart and children go unfed.

As it happens, I'm entirely in favour - nay, joyously enthusiastic - about women bishops, as apparently is a majority of the British public and 42 out of 44 dioceses of the Church of England, for both practical and theological reasons.

Practically, the fight against women bishops was lost when women were ordained priests in the Nineties. If women can't be bishops, they shouldn't be priests. And if they shouldn't be priests, we shouldn't be baptising them. I think you see where I'm going with that.

First ladies: Joyous women priests after being the first to be ordained in 1994

Theologically, the gospels clearly demonstrate, to my mind, that apostolic mission was given to women by Jesus, the Samaritan woman at the well and Mary Magdalene, first witness to the risen Christ, being the most obvious examples. Never mind St Paul - that's where all that patriarchal Church tradition took intractable root. A reformist tradition needs to do better than that.

Share this article

Share

The problem is one of Church unity. Our Archbishops have tried to keep the traditionalists inside the Church by offering provision for their conscience. That doesn't seem to be working. The much-vaunted schism in the Church of England looms large again.

But it's too easy to say, as some supporters of women bishops do, that those who can't face women bishops can embrace the ordinariate, the mechanism through which disaffected Anglicans can convert to Roman Catholicism, while maintaining some of their traditions (such as married clergy).

True, the women's lobby has embraced a code of conduct - as distinct from a law - to provide for traditionalists. Nevertheless, between now and November, we need to find a form of provision that is acceptable to those sections of our Church, or the prospect of women bishops will fade entirely, perhaps for many years.

And that's only the pragmatic thought. We also have to ask ourselves whether we really want to lose our catholic tradition in the Church of England. I think it would be tragic if we did, because I don't believe that Roman Catholicism speaks for all English catholicism.

So the women's lobby has to be very creative over the summer and into autumn. For the sake of the whole Church of England and not just the bits of it we like, we can't expect those who oppose us just to bend to our will. That's not the Anglican way.